yes the main concern here is the slippery slope.
it is akin to the federal reserve printing money and exporting inflation.
if the governance is weak, it will succumb to another round of inflation when times are hard.
up till now , there is no assurance that any action will be taken to curb inflation in the future and that is the more important point. yes we can have inflation now. but will we succumb to inflation in the future??
an inflationary Ren token is the trojan horse to a decentralised renBTC. How can renBTC be the ideal decentralised collateral when Ren governance itself is weak?
there needs to be an MOU to state that inflation be capped; or even tokens be burnt back if Ren recovers. It is similar like how Binance burns its tokens using its operating profits.
We, BatPug and Dennish, are writing to you today to demand full transparency of RenLabs’ yearly expenses, including payroll and any other expenses. This is necessary for us to properly vote on RenLabs’ fundraising from the community.
As members of the RenLabs community, we believe it is important that we have access to this information in order to fully understand how our contributions will be used and to ensure that they are being used in a responsible and accountable manner. We also want to know more about how the money will be spent, including how it will be transferred and used.
We understand that RenLabs may have valid reasons for not disclosing this information publicly, but we believe that the interests of the community should be paramount. Therefore, we demand that RenLabs provide full transparency of its yearly expenses, including payroll and any other expenses, as well as detailed information on how funds will be transferred and used, to the community as soon as possible.
Let’s do it now! It makes much more sense to do it before we vote to take the needed budget already into account. You never reply to this request @MaxRoszko even you think to talk about this asap yourself.
What if we eliminated the “Airdrop” to DNOs by simply lowering the bond requirement for them to DNO 2.0? (Or have it airdropped directly to their new bond?) The point being DNO 1.0 → DNO 2.0 parity, we don’t actually need/want to give DNOs additional liquid tokens. If there was a way to basically allow DNOs to migrate to 2.0 1:1 without inflation that would be best.
Alternatively, if we must do an airdrop/inflation… What if it was distributed to DNOs based on a time weighting, similar to how we currently calculate voting power? Long term DNOs are what will continue to bring stability to 2.0…
I would prefer if this is a one time mint and we burn the ability to make more after this proposal.
Top priorities should be identifying candidates for Foundation members, ideally who serve on other major projects (but without conflict of interest) and transparency on first budget priorities.
Increased transparency from Devs on headcount plans & finances are still good to have, as the future Foundation may need to evaluate it if any future budgetary assistance is needed (ie if Foundation needs to help with any additional dev needs). Given the climate after Alameda, RenLabs transparency will greatly improve the overall project’s trust.
This will come with abrupt withdrawal by many. But I’m going to say it anyway. I think the options for minting are far too low. Operational target for RenDao should be 1.0 Billion to achieve threshold, introduce 4-6% yearly inflation to token supply and protecting dark node holders from dilution.
The dao cant afford to introduce further tokenomic changes in the future. Provisions need to be provided/not necessarily utilized, to provide runway not just for the forseen future, but to future adoption cycles as well.
The proposal is approved, with 94.88% of the votes in favor
The amount to be minted according to the weighted average rule: 179.928M REN
The next steps for the Ren DAO is primarily to continue setting up a Foundation or Trust which can custody the tokens that would be allocated to it. This work is ongoing in the 🧱｜foundation-setup channel on the Ren community Discord server, which we encourage everyone in the community to participate in, to offer help and suggestions.
It is encouraged that a smaller group is formally or informally given the leadership role for this task, to help ensure that it can be accomplished in a timely manner. A smaller group would also make it easier for the Ren team to offer support and resources.
Some other tasks the DAO could settle in parallel to setting up a Foundation or Trust, is to determine exactly which darknodes are eligible for the ‘inflation cover’ of the mint, given that there have been contentious discussions within the community on this point. Should it only cover current registered nodes, and if so in the previous or current or some other epoch? Should there be a grace period, so current deregistering nodes are covered as well? And should the cover be open for anyone who wishes to register nodes now or at the launch of Ren 2.0?
Another minor task is to decide whether the minted amount should be rounded out to some decimal for UX reasons when bonding new nodes, such as rounding it to 180 000 000 REN, instead of 179 928 193.46 REN.
As soon as a Foundation or Trust is ready to receive the allocation of new REN and custody those funds safely, the new token contract can rapidly be deployed by the DAO with technical support from the dev team. And then a funding agreement can be reached regarding development. And then Ren 2.0.
I struggle how any reason was applied with agreed inflation without funding agreements, darknode agreements , etc being established. If Ren is 0.01 at the launch of 2.0; we will be underfunded. Agreeing on 200m prior structuring the protocol is a potential mistake and could lead to further inflation.